Talk:Monster Girl Quest: NG+ (Ecstasy)/@comment-26047404-20150127061507/@comment-26047404-20150130091518
Using a parrying dagger is not dual-wielding; it's being used as a deflection tool like a shield. Even then it's for dueling and easy carry, not really for effective military use. You generally wouldn't attack with it. It doesn't work that way. I'll explain further down. There are inherent disadvantages to dual wielding. You double the weight you are holding and moving, while your muscles stay the same. If you wanted to attack as fast as someone two-handing one weapon while holding two weapons, then you'd have to be TWICE as strong. If you wanted to attack twice as often as someone who is two-handing one weapon, you'd have to be FOUR times as strong as the person two handing a single weapon. Each attack while dual wielding is also HALF as penetrating and damaging when you dual wield, because you can only put half of your strength in each attack. So, not only do you attack more slowly, but you do less damage. The same person who makes 'two attacks at half damage while dual wielding' could make 'four attacks at full damage while two-handing one weapon'. Simplified into formulas: Dual Wielding Damage Each Attack = Two-handed Damage Each Attack/2 Dual Wielding Attack Rate = Two-handed Attack Rate/2 Dual wielding is 1/4 as effective as two-handing a single weapon, and that's not even factoring in the awkwardness, the weaker guard, and everything else I talked about. It's really bad. You double the amount of weight in your hands, without improving the characteristics of the weapons like reach. Furthermore, since each weapon is designated to only one arm, you can only put in half of your strength into one weapon at a time. Do you see how bad this is? You doubled the weight while halving your effective strength. It puts you at a 1/4 disadvantage. Dual wielding is really bad. If your opponent is two-handing one weapon, he's going to kick your ass. Let's say you're using swords. Each sword is 10 pounds. If you two-hand one sword, then you use the full strength of both of your arms to move 10 pounds. If you use two swords, then you have to move 20 pounds. Also, you can only use half of your arm strength for either sword at any one time. So, you doubled the weight, while halving the strength you can use at any one time with either sword. So you are 1/4 as effective dual wielding two primary weapons as you are two-handing one weapon. You're going to tire out more quickly; you're going to move more slowly on your feet; you're going to be more easily distracted; you're going to risk self-injury; you're going to do less damage; you're going to attack half as fast; your guard is going to be weak. The list of disadvantages is huge. Have you seen a martial artist cutting through bamboo poles with a katana? Well, they do that because they concentrate their power in one weapon, control it accurately, and use rotation. Even if they used two katana with the same motions, they wouldn't go through the pole, they would just bounce off. If you'd ever tried to cut something with a sword you would have FELT this. Oh, and when the swords bounce off that bamboo pole, one of your arms is probably going to get maimed. And that's why if you actually tried to dual wield, first you would notice that it's alot heavier and harder to control... And you hit with less force because you doubled the weight of your 'primary weapon' while halving the amount of strength you can put into either sword at one time. And then, when you fumble and those awkward, fumbly hard to control dual blades get real close to slicing you, you're going to going to have an epiphany and say, "Ohh, this is a really really really bad idea." No exceptional skill or exceptional physical ability makes these disadvantages go away. You'd still be better off with a single primary weapon. The same person just using one weapon would be still be twice as fast and with more cutting power than the guy with two primary weapons. You'd still be less likely to cut off your own hands or have your opponent use one of your swords to fumble your other sword using one weapon. Your guard would still be half as strong while dual wielding, because you can only put half of your strength into reinforcing any one block or deflection. Your speed would still be half as fast. The guy who can block multiple opponents while dual wielding could just cut down every opponent before they finish their attacks if he two-handed his weapon. Using a parrying dagger is not dual wielding. You could technically call using a shield dual wielding under the same logic if all it needs to be is a weapon, because a shield is a very serious weapon. The reason why using a parrying dagger is not dual wielding is because it is being used for defense. They keep it to their side and use it for deflection.They are using a parrying dagger because they can't use a shield in that scenario because it's dueling and they wouldn't want to carry a shield on their back every day around town, and it is assumed the opponent is using a light weapon. A shield would still be more effective. But again, it's not dual wielding because the parrying dagger is being used as a tool in the same class as a shield. They keep the dagger to their side, and they use it to block attacks if any attacks get too close. There is always a better alternative to dual wielding. Instead of awkwardly holding two weapons, just get a weapon that is twice as big or take the same weapon and move it twice as fast with twice as much force.. Or use a tool of some kind, like a shield or parrying dagger. Understand that with one weapon you CUT BETTER, because you have more force. With one weapon, you have MORE CONTROL. With one weapon, you have MORE SPEED. You can even block better, because when someone else is pushing down on your sword you can concentrate your strength. Cross blocks with two swords do not work. I explained why in my earlier post. The D&D rules that everybody is used to are so contrary to reality that it is ridiculous, and I've never understood why someone doesn't call them out on this. If you have two heavy sticks in your hands, then you attack HALF as fast as if you had one heavy stick in two hands because your muscles move the stick; the stick doesn't move itself. Each attack is also HALF as strong and penetrating.. You can't build up the same force by halving your strength like that. So not only do you half the number of attacks you make by dual wielding, you also half the damage of each attack. Dual wielding doesn't work. As for dogfights and large scale battles.... No. Just... No. You'd tire out faster with double the weight. You'd be more likely to get your weapon stuck in somebody. Remember that example of one katana = cuts cleanly through bamboo pole, and two katana = bounces off bamboo pole. As for blocking, you'd have half the effectiveness at blocking because you actually have to use STRENGTH to block or deflect something. If someone hits your sword and you don't have the strength to deflect it, your sword will just move out of the way of their sword or outright hit you. In reality, you have to move your sword fast enough to block, so you wouldn't get your sword out there fast enough if you were blocking with a second primary weapon. And also a second primary weapon is really poor at blocking. You can get away with with a shield, because a shield is flat and close to your arm. Do you remember anything about levers from grade school? Here's why a second sword makes for a dumb parrying tool. It's long. The farther a force is from the hilt, the more difficult it will be to resist. That long second sword will act as a force multiplier; it will act as a lever. It means that not only do you have to use more strength to keep the tip up, it means that the opponent's sword will exert more force if they're in contact with any point along the sword that isn't at the hilt. That's why a parrying dagger can be used for deflection and a shield can be used for deflection, because a shield is practically flat against your hand and a parrying dagger is a very short weapon. But a parrying dagger is basically useless for attacking when you have something like a rapier. It's a shield replacement. That's not the ridiculous dual wielding stuff you see on TV. You don't 'make an attack every round' with your parrying dagger. It just stays close to your body. It wouldn't give you an attack modifier at all; it'd give you a defense modifier. It acts as a shield, and the only reason you're using it is because a shield wasn't convenient to carry around or it goes against the rules. The only time you might attack with your parrying dagger is if the other guy trips and falls, and you got an attack of opportunity on his way down -- and you missed with your rapier. As for fiction, like if you had the scenario where somebody has a weapon that has to be dual wielded to use its magical abilities or something.. That still doesn't take away the inherent disadvantages to dual wielding. That's just basically a specially designed scenario to justify dual wielding. It means that the cost of getting the magical ability is putting up with the disadvantages of dual wielding.